Beaver River Watershed Improvement, Phase 2 Shared Stewardship
Project ID: 5649
Status: Current
Fiscal Year: 2022
Submitted By: N/A
Project Manager: Jared Whitmer
PM Agency: U.S. Forest Service
PM Office: Beaver Ranger District
Lead: U.S. Forest Service
WRI Region: Southern
Description:
This project will involve multiple phases which in part will be a continuation of the ongoing work within the Beaver River Watershed. This work includes projects to improve watershed health and diversity, water quality and yield, and provide opportunities for sustainable uses. Ongoing and future projects include Timber Stand Improvement (TSI), vegetation treatments for fuels reduction (both mechanical and prescribed fire), wildlife habitat and range improvement.
Location:
The Beaver River Watershed Improvement project is located in south -central Utah east of the town of Beaver. This area encompasses approximately 60,000 acres of National Forest system lands administered by the Fishlake National Forest, Beaver Ranger District.
Project Need
Need For Project:
The Fishlake NF and Beaver Ranger District have committed extensive efforts to meet forest management goals to maintain watershed productivity with a strong emphasis on vegetative diversity for plant and animal resilience. Natural successional cycles that result in an ecotype climax community do not offer diversity and are prone to insect and disease infestations and large catastrophic fires that damage natural resources, infrastructure investments, and watershed function. Within the Beaver River Watershed there is a need to reduce fuel loading and ladder fuels, respond to current insect and disease outbreaks, and diversify vegetation to prevent further disease spread to protect the values at risk of, infrastructure (recreation developments, roads, trails etc.) soil productivity, and watershed function. Responsible actions with vegetative diversification would include eliminating noxious and invasive weeds from the watershed for sustained use and a properly functioning ecosystem. Range conditions are different today than they were before Euro-American settlement. Changes in human uses (grazing, timber harvests, recreation, water use, etc.), disturbance regimes (fire, insects, etc.), climatic conditions, and wildlife species density have led to a decrease in forage species and an increase in conifer species. These changes have resulted in a smaller forage base for livestock and wildlife.
Objectives:
Diversify the plant communities within the Beaver River Watershed to support a properly functioning ecosystem that is resilient to disturbance. This can be accomplished by opening up heavily wooded areas, producing marketable timber for the economy, and reducing hazardous fuel loads across the watershed and within developed recreation sites. This will renew the forest by stimulating the growth of grasses, forbs, and shrubs that can be used by animals living in the forest. These renewed forest areas will decrease disease in forest stands creating a healthier forest which will be less prone to negative impacts from wildfire on watersheds and private lands. These planned treatments will also help remove shade trees and competition toward re-establishing healthy aspen clones and understory species, now in decline.
Project Location/Timing Justification (Why Here? Why Now?):
Silvicultural surveys show that subalpine fir establishment has reached a point where the more shade intolerant tree species (aspen, ponderosa pine, Douglas-fir, and Engelmann spruce) are not successfully regenerating. Without action, both ground and tree species diversity will decline as species currently on site experience senescence and are replaced by a monoculture of subalpine fir. Acting now, prior to losing the seed source on site, will allow for the retention of biodiversity and forgoing the cost of replanting. If not approached in the proposed manner, the forest vegetation is at threat of being removed by catastrophic wildfire, resulting in total loss of cover. Which often results in erosive cycles and soil loss with an increased risk of invasive plant and noxious weed establishment.
Relation To Management Plan:
1) Fishlake Land and Resource Management Plan (LRMP) also referred to as the "Forest Plan" Implementation of the methods proposed below would meet the guidance provided in the LRMP. Specifically these projects would meet the following goals; Diversity: Integrate vegetation management with resource management to maintain productivity and provide for diversity of plant and animal communities. (LRMP pg. IV-3). Wildlife and Fish: Coordinate wildlife and fish habitat management with State and other Federal and local agencies. (LRMP pg. IV-3). and Identify and improve habitat for sensitive, threatened and endangered species including participation in recovery efforts for both plants and animals. (LRMP pg. IV-4). 2) Utah Wildlife Action Plan, 2015 Publication Number 15-14, State of Utah, Department of Natural Resources, Division of Wildlife Resources, Effective 2015-2025 -- 3) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Mule deer. Section IV Statewide management goals and objectives. This plan will address Habitat Objective 2: Improve the quality and quantity of vegetation for mule deer on a minimum of 500,000 acres of crucial range by 2013 (p11-12). Strategy C. Initiate broad scale vegetative treatment projects to improve mule deer habitat with emphasis on drought or fire damaged sagebrush winter ranges, ranges that are being taken over by invasive annual grass species, and ranges being diminished by encroachment of conifers into sagebrush or aspen habitats. Strategy f. Encourage land managers to manage portions of pinion-juniper woodlands and aspen/conifer forests in early successional stages. 4) XXXXX Deer Herd Management Plan Unit #XX (2015) - 5) Utah Division of Wildlife Resources Statewide Management Plan for Elk.Habitat management goal B, strategy C. B. Habitat Management Goal: Conserve and improve elk habitat throughout the state. Habitat Objective 1: Maintain sufficient habitat to support elk herds at population objectives and reduce competition for forage between elk and livestock. Strategies: C. Watershed Restoration Initiative a) Increase forage production by annually treating a minimum of 40,000 acres of elk habitat. 5) Beaver County Resource Management Plan 2017, Agriculture policies and guidelines, number 9. (page 28) 9. Beaver County encourages land management agencies to maximize vegetative treatment efforts on public lands. 6) National Cohesive Strategy By means of prescribed fire and mechanical thinning at a landscape scale, the resulting mosaic of early and late successional forests will work toward the goal of restoring and maintaining resilient landscapes, one of the three goals described in the National Cohesive Strategy. 1. Resilient Landscapes General guidance regarding vegetation and fuels management include* Use and expand fuel treatments involving mechanical, biological, or chemical methods where economically feasible and sustainable, and where they align with landowner objectives. (pg. 58) 7) State of Utah Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy The Beaver River Project aligns with the mission of the State of Utah's Catastrophic Wildfire Reduction Strategy. The project has developed a comprehensive and systematic approach toward reducing the size, intensity and frequency of catastrophic wildland fires near the Fish Lake basin. The project reduces the risk of a catastrophic wildfire occurrence negatively affecting property, air quality and water systems. The Mission: Develop a collaborative process to protect the health and welfare of Utahns, and our lands by reducing the size and frequency of catastrophic fires. (pg. 4) 5. Adopt Key Recommendations from the National Cohesive Wildland Fire Management Strategy. (pg. 15) * Encourage federal land management agencies to expedite fuels treatments. (pg. 15) * Prioritize landscapes for treatment (irrespective of jurisdictional boundaries). (pg. 15)
Fire / Fuels:
Treating the vegetation in these areas will result in multiple benefits, which include but are not limited to, improving and protecting current habitat for wildlife dependent upon these various ecosystems, improving native species diversity, reducing hazardous fuel accumulations and creating a diverse and mosaic pattern of vegetation that will help break up the current dense stands of mixed conifer. These treatments will promote a more fire resilient environment that reduces the risk for large scale, intense unwanted wildland fires, with less risk to public and firefighter safety. Fire risk would be reduced in multiple watersheds within the Beaver Canyon. Existing wildfire risk index in the project area ranges from moderate-high to very-high and given the recent fire history in the area and looking at fire modeling results, an unwanted wildfire in this area at the 97th percentile weather would quickly spread into high risk areas and threaten multiple watersheds, private lands and numerous other values not only wildlife habitat, but structures, culinary water systems, and utility corridors to name a few. The majority of this project is within fire regime IV mixed severity, 35-100+ year frequency stand replacement. The Fire Regime Condition Class (FRCC) for this area is estimated to be of both moderate (FRCC 2) and high (FRCC 3) departure from the central tendency of the natural (historical) regime. The central tendency is a composite estimate of vegetation characteristics (species composition, structural stages, stand age, canopy closure, and mosaic pattern); fuel composition; fire frequency, severity, and pattern; and other associated natural disturbances. The majority of this project would be in FRCC 3. This project will improve the fire regime condition class to FRCC 1 and FRCC 2. The desire is to continue the beneficial work that has been completed over the past decade on the Beaver Ranger District. This project will manipulate the vegetation in a manner that will modify fire behavior such that fire suppression personnel will have decision space and time and can safely initial attack unwanted wildfires in the area. These treatments will provide anchor points, safety zones, and buffer zones for values at risk such as powerlines, communities, range improvements, campgrounds and other infrastructure. These treatments will also open opportunities to manage wildfire and utilize prescribed fire at the landscape scale.
Water Quality/Quantity:
This project takes place adjacent to the Beaver River and several of its tributaries. Lentic waterbodies in the project area include: Three Creeks Reservoir, Kents Lakes (Lower, Middle, and Upper), and Little Reservoir. Water from the Beaver River watershed is utilized as drinking water in the town of Beaver, UT. A water treatment site is located at the bottom of Jim Reed Creek, just below a portion of the project area. Project activities should reduce the risk of catastrophic fire in the Beaver River watershed. Recent Utah wildfires have been severely detrimental to municipal water supplies as springs and groundwater become contaminated following post fire floods and debris flows. Efforts to reduce wildfire risk will protect water quality in the Beaver River watershed, a source of the "Best Water in the USA." The Beaver River and its tributaries exceed TMDLs and are included as 303d impaired waterbodies for Total Phosphorus. Kent's Lake also exceeds TMDLs and is included on the 303d impaired waterbody list in the Beaver River Watershed for Total Phosphorus and dissolved oxygen (UDWQ: Beaver River Watershed TMDL). Project activities would regenerate improved understory conditions, grass, forbs, and shrubs which should improve water quality by leading to less generation of sediment during overland flow events and thereby delivering less sediment to riparian areas, rivers, and subsequent reservoirs. Reducing sediment can decrease pollutants in these impaired waterbodies by reducing phosphorus loading associated with sediment mobilization during such flow events. Additionally, vegetation treatments would be designed to reduce the risk of severe wildfire and all of the associated undesirable water quality effects. As vegetation classes transition from overgrown conifer stands to thinned stands with improved understory forbs, grasses, and brush, water retention and quantity should increase.
Compliance:
Treatments proposed as part of this project are covered by three signed NEPA decisions: North Beaver Fuels Project, South Beaver Vegetation Management Project, and Big Flat Vegetation Management. As a part of the planning process for each decision SHIPO approval has been given.
Methods:
The actions to be taken with this project include vegetation treatments in several vegetation types, including low elevation Pinyon and Juniper, Mid elevation mountain bush and mahogany, and upper elevation mixed conifer stands. The types of treatments range from prescribed fire to mechanical thinning with chipping and or hand piling and pile burning. These will be accomplished with both contracts and agency personnel. Forest Service will utilize IDIQ contracts, work with partners (FFSL, SITLA) and Good Neighbor Agreements, as well as complete some of the work with agency personnel. All treatments will manipulate vegetation in a manner to improve the health and diversity of the treated areas.
Monitoring:
Noxious weeds and invasive species (ex. cheatgrass) management are a big concern on rangelands managed by the FNF. Various weed and vegetation treatments have been implemented to control the spread of noxious weeds and invasive species. As part of the proposed project inventory, monitoring, and treatment of weeds or invasive species will occur. This will benefit the establishment and the sustainability of the desirable vegetation that occupy the treated areas after treatment. Pre and post treatments surveys both photo plot, stand exams and browns transects have been established. Also aerial detections surveys for insects and disease have been reoccurring across the project area by Forest Health Protection since 2012.
Partners:
Partners in support and who have helped develop and design this project include Beaver City, Beaver County, BLM, FFSL, NRCS, SITLA, Hi-Low Whispering Pines Community, Elk Meadows Special Service District, Eagle Point Ski Resort, Rocky Mountain Power, U-DOT and numerous private land owners and public land users. Each of these have participated in site visits, planning meetings, and group discussions providing input to help facilitate implementation plans. Multiple land owners have invested time and money treating the vegetation on their own lands. The Forest Service and FFSL have previously participated jointly in a GNA project that was one of the first steps in a series of treatments to enhance the watershed, reduce hazardous fuels, promote health and diversity of the vegetation in the area. Beaver City and Beaver County are strong supporters and see vegetation treatments in these areas as a benefit to the citizens of Beaver County and its public land users. Beaver City has commissioned a study of the aquifer that feeds their springs sources located on lands managed by the Forest Service, and are in support of treatments that will benefit the water quality and quantity. This series of projects will do that.
Future Management:
There are some proposed water development projects within the project area that will also help gain better distribution of grazing animals across the landscape. There are parts of 4 National Forest livestock grazing allotments within the project area. Each of these allotments is divided into pastures that are managed in a grazing rotation to help achieve desired utilization (grazing) levels on the forage plants within the allotment. These allotments support approximately 1,200 cattle owned by 9 permittees for 3 to 4 months (3,600 Head Months) annually. This project will open up heavy timbered areas which should stimulate production of fine vegetation (grasses, forbs, and shrubs) in the area. The grasses, forbs, and shrubs will stimulate diversity in the area and increase forage production allowing grazing animals to do better (physical condition) and distribute better across the landscape.
Sustainable Uses of Natural Resources:
Implementation of the methods described in this document would lead to the sustainable use of natural resources in the following ways: 1. Commercial and non-commercial timber treatments designed by trained silviculturalists lead to the perpetuation of healthy timber stands through active forest management. This approach minimizes the risk of an unwanted wildfire while providing an economic benefit to the rural communities of Utah. 2. Prescribed fire implementation allows managers to reduce fuel loading by dictating when ignitions would occur to achieve the desired effect on the landscape. Fire is a natural component of the ecosystem and is necessary to maintain forest health. By using it intentionally many of the undesirable effects are mitigated and the ecosystem is preserved for the long term. 3. Recreational pursuits of hunting and fishing would be improved with vegetative diversification and seral stage changes. Water quality would be improved with establishment of ground cover through the removal of overstory shading trees that limit production. Hiking, mountain biking, and motorized recreation would continue with minor interruptions during implementation. Recreational infrastructure of campgrounds, roads, and trail networks would be protected from fire coming into these areas or coming out of these areas onto the undeveloped areas of the forest. Removing dead or infested trees and diversifying the species composition will allow for the continued use by the public and be aesthetically pleasing to the users. 4. The proposed treatments will promote increased grass, forb, and shrub communities. As a result of this project, when all phases are complete, the amount of forage available to grazing animals is expected to increase. With increased forage, animal distribution and management is expected to improve in the many areas that are currently unproductive due to extensive conifer shading. As grazing resources are improved with the re-establishment of grass and forb communities negative impacts to meadows and riparian areas should decrease as well. 5. Hunting for small and big game will continue to occur. The lands within the proposed treatment area are important habitat for mule deer and Rocky Mountain Elk. The lower elevations are transitional with some wintering habitat at the lowest elevations. The entire area is important and popular for big game, cougar, bear hunting and other wildlife pursuits. 6. Commercial material will be made available through commercial timber sales. Deck timber sales are proposed as part of the project, where commercial Engelmann spruce stands exist. Commercial timber sales will continue within the project area and across the watershed. District Timber staff have been promoting commercial biomass sales of normally non-merchantable timber such as white fir, sub-alpine fir, pinyon, and juniper to local private companies to be processed into wood chips, Christmas trees, or essential oils. Some interest is starting to be shown and hopefully a market niche will be developed and more of the biomass produced from the mechanical portions of this project will be able to be utilized. 7. Fishing (a variety of fish species) is a popular activity in the Beaver River and tributaries to which it flows. Forest restoration will improve transition and summer ranges that will benefit wildlife along with improving water quality and reducing risk to necessary fish habitat and watersheds. This project will promote sustainability for a variety of sportsmen and sportswomen along with providing more hunting and fishing opportunities for future generations. 8. Vegetation treatments that encourage forest regeneration on spring and summer range will continue to provide quality deer fawning and elk calving habitat. A productive understory combined with some dead and down trees is optimal habitat for big game birthing.
Budget WRI/DWR Other Budget Total In-Kind Grand Total
$201,000.00 $7,880,400.00 $8,081,400.00 $0.00 $8,081,400.00
Item Description WRI Other In-Kind Year
Personal Services (permanent employee) Personnel/labor $0.00 $341,500.00 $0.00 2021
Other Travel $0.00 $20,000.00 $0.00 2021
Equipment Purchase Equipment maintenance and purchase $0.00 $50,000.00 $0.00 2021
Materials and Supplies $60,000 for 5 - three panel Kiosks $20,000 for overall project supplies $0.00 $80,000.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services $661,200 - Grizzly Ridge $682,100 - TRW Phase 2 $1,812,000 - TR Ski Runs $693,500 - Kay's Meadow $1,029,800 - Otter Lake $843,600 - LeBaron $177,500 - TRW Phase 1 $171,000 - Baker Canyon $897,600 - Travel Route $320,000 - Lake Peak $0.00 $7,288,900.00 $0.00 2021
Contractual Services Contract/Force Account Road Maintenance and Construction $0.00 $100,000.00 $0.00 2021
Personal Services (permanent employee) For monitoring and treatment of noxious weeds across numerous large scale treatments already funded and also found in this years shared stewardship proposal. $30,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Contractual Services A small portion of the shared stewardship proposal is for a lop and scatter contract. This money would be used to fund approximately 855 acres of lop and scatter of PJ in the Baker Canyon area surrounding Beaver City's municipal water sources. $171,000.00 $0.00 $0.00 2022
Funding WRI/DWR Other Funding Total In-Kind Grand Total
$1,601,500.00 $451,400.00 $2,052,900.00 $686.64 $2,053,586.64
Source Phase Description Amount Other In-Kind Year
USFS - Shared Stewardship A145 $39,360.96 $0.00 $0.00 2022
USFS - Shared Stewardship $0.00 $451,400.00 $0.00 2022
USFS - Shared Stewardship A145 $136,873.30 $0.00 $0.00 2023
FFSL - Shared Stewardship U083 $24,002.70 $0.00 $0.00 2023
DWR-WRI Project Admin In-Kind $0.00 $0.00 $686.64 2022
FFSL - Shared Stewardship U083 $6,901.24 $0.00 $0.00 2022
USFS - Shared Stewardship A145 $72,203.72 $0.00 $0.00 2024
FFSL - Shared Stewardship U083 $12,156.28 $0.00 $0.00 2024
USFS - Shared Stewardship A145 $237,298.46 $0.00 $0.00 2025
FFSL - Shared Stewardship U083 $39,757.54 $0.00 $0.00 2025
USFS-WRI A145 $884,763.56 $0.00 $0.00 2026
FFSL - Shared Stewardship U083 $148,182.24 $0.00 $0.00 2026
Species
Species "N" Rank HIG/F Rank
Elk R2
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Flammulated Owl N4
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Golden Eagle N5
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Medium
Mule Deer R1
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity High
Habitats
Habitat
Aquatic-Forested
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Low
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Improper Forest Management High
Aspen-Conifer
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Very High
Mountain Meadow
Threat Impact
Not Listed NA
Mountain Sagebrush
Threat Impact
Problematic Plant Species – Native Upland Very High
Mountain Shrub
Threat Impact
Inappropriate Fire Frequency and Intensity Low
Riverine
Threat Impact
Fire and Fire Suppression Medium
Project Comments
Comment 01/19/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Keith Day
Jared, You do not provide any details about what types of treatments will be used in which settings. Why will flammulated owls and golden eagles benefit from this project? Which treatment types will benefit them? I cannot assess those benefits from the description you offer. Will you be survyeing for pinyon jay colonies in the lower level pj in the project area? What steps will be taken to avoid detrimental impacts to woodpecker and forest raptor (NOGO) habitats? etc. Keith
Comment 01/22/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: N/A
Hey Keith, Thanks for looking into this project. The specific answers to your questions lie in the associated NEPA documents (attached) to this project. That said, the myriad of treatments avoid known NOGO nesting areas discovered during two consecutive years of survey in potential habitat. Also discovered a previously unknown PEFA eyrie last year thanks to observant timber crew personnel. As primarily a fuels reduction project seeking to prevent or better manage any wildfire in the area given the threat to abundant private dwellings and commercial property (Eagle Point ski resort), i.e. the Brian Head scenario, changes in habitat are anticipated to the many conifer forest species you mention through harvest and thinning, but will be somewhat mitigated by snag retention provisions of the Forest Plan and the balancing of the need for restoring the suffering aspen ecosystem in the watershed and the associated species. GOEA and FLOW are present in the area and as such are listed from the WRI pull down list but will likely be no more to benefit than purple martins or Lewis's woodpeckers that are also found but very rarely seen nesting on the forest given the decadence of our aspen. We'd love to have you at the table with other SRO staff to craft the contract language for treatments to conserve important pinyon jay components like a dbh or basal diameter of mature cone producing pinyons as we've discussed with Kendall, who'll likely be administering these contracts. I'd love to share and have you review a growing dataset of neotrop data B Farnsworth has been collecting throughout this project area and the rest of the District for that matter, to further assist with treatment design and timing. For now we are simply following timing regimes recommended by FWS and conserving primary habitat components that allow for fuels reduction but allow us to maintain integrity of unique communities. For example, treatments planned along SR-153 (Beaver Canyon) where we have rights of way for both the highway and powerline, we are strongly recommending to our partnering agencies who can exercise their right of way and remove all woody vegetation, to avoid treating riparian vegetation (willow, birch, young cottonwoods) and conserving low elevation pine (PIPO) while removing other conifers and only those trees that are direct threats to their infrastructure to minimize impacts to riparian nesters and hopefully not negatively impact the riverine and hydrology system in place. Lots of specialists involved here and we'd love to have you in the field for a day to look things over and be able to us and Kendall with contract provisions as we fine tune. Steve
Comment 01/27/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Scott Chamberlain
Can you tell us the treatments that will be implemented in the mountain mahogany communities?
Comment 02/09/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Cory Norman
Scott, Thank you for your review and question regarding this project. As far as treating in the mahogany community types there isn't one specific treatment area that is focused on this veg type. Within the Shared Stewardship write up that is attached in the document section you will see we have several proposed treatments and these treatments may affect some mahogany on the fringes, especially the lower elevation ones such as the prescribed fire on the Black Ridge. Thanks again for the review and comment. Thanks, Cory
Comment 01/28/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Just looking at the map of treatment type by location, I'm thinking you will most definitely be helping some streams and adjoining riparian zones. This is both via direct on-site intervention, as well as indirect reduction in fire-front intensity & energy release higher up the adjoining or contributing hillslopes. Therefore, please strongly consider adding both Riverine and Aquatic - Forested. Thanks, good luck, and THANK YOU for swinging for the fences on this. This is exactly the scale of stewardship intervention our landscapes need - BIG.
Comment 02/09/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Cory Norman
Jimi, Thank you for looking at our project. Yes we are looking at the watershed scale and the work that it would take to mitigate fire risk to key values, as well as improve habitat. I will visit with the District Ranger and discuss your recommendations. Thanks, Cory
Comment 02/09/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Jimi Gragg
Cool. Just in case we aren't communicating - when I said "add Riverine..." I just meant "click the Habitats tab and select those, there". I'm saying that right now, without needing to visit with anyone else - I think you're fully justified in adding them as habitats that will benefit from this project. Select whichever threats to those habitats you will be affecting positively. These additions may result in more points for your competitiveness, but even if that is not the result - making the changes will definitely mean more accurate records & results-reporting for the program. And that matters for all of us. Thanks again, and good luck.
Comment 02/22/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Kourtney Bradshaw
Thank you Jimi for the comment. We have gone and added that in.
Comment 02/17/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Gary Bezzant
Great projects that we are excited to see come to pass whether right now or over the course of several years. 1 thought that could help in your scoring is to look closer at the ranking criteria associated with monitoring, we would like more info on how you are planning to monitor the vegetative changes and species responses to the projects.
Comment 02/22/2021 Type: 1 Commenter: Kourtney Bradshaw
Thank you Gary for your comment. We have already established photo plots, stand exams and Browns transects that are planned to be read again post treatment. We also have a yearly aerial detection flight for insects and disease by Forest Health Management. Our monitoring will also include presence, absence and expansion if any of noxious weeds in the treatment areas.
Completion
Start Date:
End Date:
FY Implemented:
Final Methods:
Project Narrative:
Future Management:
Map Features
ID Feature Category Action Treatement/Type
9925 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9926 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9927 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9928 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9929 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9930 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9931 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9932 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9933 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9934 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9935 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9936 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9937 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9938 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop and scatter
9939 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9940 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (commercial)
9941 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9942 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (commercial)
9944 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9945 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9946 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9947 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9948 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9949 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9950 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9951 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9952 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9953 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9957 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9958 Terrestrial Treatment Area Vegetation removal / hand crew Lop-pile-burn
9959 Terrestrial Treatment Area Forestry practices Thinning (non-commercial)
9960 Terrestrial Treatment Area Prescribed fire Prescribed fire
Project Map
Project Map